Sign up and Become a Free Member at BlackBox Politics to Receive Free Updates, Breaking News and discounts on Holistic Nutraceuticals

We want to thank our followers, readers, supporters and contributors. Take part of, join and help spread the truth throughout the global community. Sign up and Become a Free Member at BlackBox Politics to Receive Free Updates, Breaking News and discounts on Holistic Nutraceuticals.

New Peer-Reviewed Paper’s Bold Statement: Seralini Study on GMOs & Tumors Was Right After All

One of the benchmark moments in the movement for GMO transparency came in 2012 when professor Gilles-Eric Séralini of France and his team published a study showing the toxic, carcinogenic effects of Monsanto’s Roundup and Roundup-Ready corn on lab rats.

Now, yet another peer-reviewed paper is once again backing the Séralini study and asking deeper questions about what has become of science in an era where commercial and corporate interests are taking an active role in deciding what results should be deemed acceptable.

The paper was attacked by pro-GMO scientists, who argued that it should be retracted. Eventually the journal editor capitulated and retracted the paper, though it was subsequently republished in Environmental Sciences Europe.

The authors of the new paper comment on this row, lamenting the growth of “a trend in which disputes, between interest groups vying for retraction and republication of papers that report controversial results, overshadow the normal scientific process in which peer-reviewed publication stimulates new research, generating new empirical evidence that drives the evolution of scientific understanding.”

The authors, John Fagan, Terje Traavik and Thomas Bøhn also back the findings of the Séralini study in an analysis that they say confirms the following:

“…that NK603 maize and Roundup are kidney and liver toxicants at levels below current regulatory thresholds and that ‘consequently, the regulatory status of NK603, glyphosate and Roundup requires reevaluation.’”

In other words, they believe, unfortunately for the millions of people unknowingly consuming GMOs in the United States where labeling is not mandated, that serious health risks are likely, just as Séralini and his team discovered.

The paper also pokes at the “gaping holes” in the pro-GMO lobby’s critiques of the study, casting doubt on the entire process of the Séralini study’s retraction.

For more on the paper, check out the article titled “Science must be protected from commercial interests.” by clicking on this link. You can also read the full paper from Fagan and his colleagues by clicking on the link as well.